Send for the Aussies

[AZOffaly]

Jinxy, I think that's a moot point (and if we were to debate it, I'd say the skills of kick passing, shooting and catching were better in Offaly 20 years ago), but the core point is that they can be improved upon. There's no need to look back at the so-called 'Golden years' to see that there are deficiencies today. And you can't exactly go back and make the teams of the 70s more skillful now, you'd have to coach some of them like Fr. Ted with his priests 5 a side.

Whether or not skills levels have changed, the point is that they are not great now. Today. And when great advances seem to have been made in other areas, skills are not improving at the same rate. We shouldn't be saying 'It's no worse than it was 20 years ago', we should be saying 'How can we make the skill levels better than they ever were?'.

[Zulu]

I've read that line a few time and still can't make head nor tail of it...

Maybe I didn't word it that well but to break it down, there is a genetic ceiling to how much we can improve in terms of fitness, i.e. Nobody will ever run the 100m in 6 seconds and I'll never run it under 10sec, regardless of the quality of training.

There is a multitude of fitness and skill components in football, e.g. aerobic, anaerobic, strength, power, agility, flexibilty, priprioception, handling, intelligence, experience, kicking etc. so the fitter or faster player isn't always the better player, for example the Gooch wouldn't necessarily be fitter, faster or stronger than every player he has marked but he would be regarded as better than most.

Well I don't agree it's one or the other ... but I don't think that's the main point.

I agree it isn't necessarily one or the other but the point is the top 2 or 3 teams are definitely more skillful than the other teams, it is very debateable whether they are fitter than everyone else.

Well perhaps - my basic point is that the standard of coaching is poor.
The biggest names in cpaching tend to be coaches who get players fitter and that's the easiest thing to do (Monaghan). It's harder to train and improve a team skill wise and as a functional unit - (Tyrone)

Well by the highest standards they probably aren't the greatest but they aren't too bad considering they neither have the time with the players or the resources of professional outfits.

Mickey Harte hit the nail on the head on Newstalk earlier.
We were brought up in a time where only the biggest games between the better teams were televised.
How many of us can recall televised games from the 70's and early 80's that didn't involve either Kerry or Dublin?
How many of us can recall televised games from the 80's that didn't involve either Meath or Cork.
Now we get to see all the good teams, all the middling teams and all the shit teams.
So when people talk of a skills deficit, do they mean
a) skills are worse they once were (i.e. a Longford, Offaly or Sligo footballer now is less skilful than his counterpart 20 years ago).
b) the skills of the modern mid-lower level teams are bad
or
c) the skills of the top 5 teams are bad.

Well I would argue that the skill levels are higher now than ever before but that they still aren't high enough especially considering the time and money being spent on teams now.

[AZOffaly]

Sean Boylan said on RTE radio last Sunday that he was concerned about the modern-day emphasis on bulking up Gaelic footballers. He inferred that it was being done at the expense of other training, notably ball work.

Sean implied, Martin inferred. Man who is paid to write in the English language should know that. Basic skills and training Martin, sadly lacking in the journalistic world.

In fairness tyssam5, I used to get annoyed by that all the time, but one day I looked it up, and it's not actually incorrect to substitute infer for imply, even though it seems silly to me. Maybe it's just the vernacular that's been accepted despite being incorrect, but this definition seems to back Breheny up..

in·fer  (n-fûr)
v. in·ferred, in·fer·ring, in·fers
v.tr.
1. To conclude from evidence or premises.
2. To reason from circumstance; surmise: We can infer that his motive in publishing the diary was less than honorable.
3. To lead to as a consequence or conclusion: "Socrates argued that a statue inferred the existence of a sculptor" (Academy).
4. To hint; imply.

[tyssam5]

Sean Boylan said on RTE radio last Sunday that he was concerned about the modern-day emphasis on bulking up Gaelic footballers. He inferred that it was being done at the expense of other training, notably ball work.

Sean implied, Martin inferred. Man who is paid to write in the English language should know that. Basic skills and training Martin, sadly lacking in the journalistic world.

In fairness tyssam5, I used to get annoyed by that all the time, but one day I looked it up, and it's not actually incorrect to substitute infer for imply, even though it seems silly to me. Maybe it's just the vernacular that's been accepted despite being incorrect, but this definition seems to back Breheny up..

in·fer  (n-fûr)
v. in·ferred, in·fer·ring, in·fers
v.tr.
1. To conclude from evidence or premises.
2. To reason from circumstance; surmise: We can infer that his motive in publishing the diary was less than honorable.
3. To lead to as a consequence or conclusion: "Socrates argued that a statue inferred the existence of a sculptor" (Academy).
4. To hint; imply.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infer

Yes definitely some ambiguity about the usage and I would have no problem with a regional journalist firing them in there whatever way he wants. But Brehony is a national writer, he made the step-up to the inter county scene, he needs to be held accountable to the highest standards of skill, training and eloquence.

[Hardy]

There's an awful lot of that going on now - dictionaries including the incorrect definition of a word, presumably because weight of incorrect usage has rendered the incorrect version widely accepted. 'Fulsome' is another one I noticed recently that nearly everybody misuses, but the "wrong" version is now in some dictionaries beside the original version, which has the direct opposite meaning. I suppose you can say it's the language evolving, but it's a bit confusing if one word can have two directly opposing definitions and if enough people doing the wrong thing make it right.

Anyway - lads don't practice enough and never did. Snooker players and golfers practice for hours every day. How long do footballers spend per week on skills practice?

[Zulu]

Anyway - lads don't practice enough and never did. Snooker players and golfers practice for hours every day. How long do footballers spend per week on skills practice?

Well in fairness Hardy footballers are amateur and they need to take nights off to recover aswell but I'd take your point, not enough of them practice improving on their weaknesses.

[Gnevin]

Tonight will free us a lot .  A Kildare team on the up and dark horse Laois team.

[screenexile]

I'm really liking this thread btw guys some great informed debate with no slagging matches. It has restored my faith in the board.

I haven't much time to respond at the minute bit to say something that hasn't been mentioned is players doing work on their own. When younger I can guarantee most players spent their spare time kicking frees at the local pitch and kicking high balls up against a wall to catch them. This undoubtedly improves skill levels but with the pressures of work/family lofe senior players tend to neglect to do these things to keep their skills honed. Whereas managers presume their players have that basic ability when they clearly don't. Any team I'm involved with I always encourage them to practice their catching and kicking on their own and it generally noticeable in training those who do.

One of Mickey Hartes philosophies I wholeheartedly agree with is "my players don't train to get fit, they get fit to train!"

[Jinxy]

Watching the Kildare-Laois game.
Monster catch by Quigley at midfield, ball ends up with McCormack hugging the touchline and he bends it over with the outside of the left boot.
Some lovely scores in the Cavan-Antrim game too.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

'Fulsome' is another one I noticed recently that nearly everybody misuses, but the "wrong" version is now in some dictionaries beside the original version, which has the direct opposite meaning.

A contender for the most misused word in the English language Hardy, does anyone know when they use that word that it actually means 'offensive to good taste'? Up there with 'decimate', but I suppose that weight of current usage has to count for something.

[Gnevin]

Nothing wrong with that Antrim game tonight.

[Logan]

This subject has been raised a few times.

Gaelic football has evolved over the years and will continue to, both in skill and in physical ability. As long as it is a sport there will always been players who rely more on their physical ability than their skill, but rarely the other way around, especially at the elite level.

In terms of football becoming more physically dominated or orientated - this is true to some degree owing to the influence of other sports and also the need to get an edge. Almost every coach has an opinion on physical development - but very few have an insight into skill development.

As some of you know I've spent a bit of time talking to a number of coaches over the past few months, and trying to find the best guys out there.
Some we all know and others who aren't as well known and these are some of the points I took from them relevant to this debate -  

- Most IC-training is sub standard
- A large proportion of IC training and some club training is in fact dangerous to long/medium term health
- Specific individual skill work is largely ignored above U16 level and hardly ever worked at IC
- Most club and team trainers are eager for information - but poorly informed - i.e. It's not the trainers fault
- Fastest way to make an impression or keep a job as a coach is - Get a team very fit
- Fastest way to burn a team out is to - Get a team very fit fast
- Getting a team very fit fast = A short term goal
- Individual relaxed skill training has deteriorated to some degree due to social practices and 'social progressions'
- The teams with the most injuries are most likely the teams with the worst training practices
- The greatest improvements can be made in the individualization of training
- (Unlike what Zulu said) there is no real limit on physical development - the human body will continue to evolve. [i.e. The world record for the 100m will reach 6 seconds at some stage]
- The players who are most successful operate pre-learned skills at optimal speeds a high level of physical fitness over the whole period of the game
    - In other words they most be physically fit to begin with, with good skill background and mental clarity - and then able to reproduce when fatigued
- To tray and train this in the wrong way or prematurely is the fastest way to burn out and injury
- Fitness is impossible to compare unless you have two people tested simultaneously or at the same station.
- The winning team always looks fitter.
- A skillful player will expend more energy than a less skillful player - all things being equal.
- Physical ability is a skill. i.e. sprinting is a skill.


(There's a load more but that is just from memory from some of my notes)

[JMohan]

Maybe I didn't word it that well but to break it down, there is a genetic ceiling to how much we can improve in terms of fitness, i.e. Nobody will ever run the 100m in 6 seconds and I'll never run it under 10sec, regardless of the quality of training.

I don't agree on that. The 4 minute mile was there but broken etc etc and I think if you look at all records - they will be broken in time.
I don't think you can say there is a genetic ceiling on anything since we (as a race) don't even know enough about our own genes yet to make that statement!!!
But we're probably moving off point here. 

There is a multitude of fitness and skill components in football, e.g. aerobic, anaerobic, strength, power, agility, flexibilty, priprioception, handling, intelligence, experience, kicking etc. so the fitter or faster player isn't always the better player, for example the Gooch wouldn't necessarily be fitter, faster or stronger than every player he has marked but he would be regarded as better than most.

You made my argument for me.
Look at all the physical traits you listed - this is why physical fitness will always be the biggest factor in GAA.
Partly it's because we know more about them - but it's also because we know little about training skill!

[Zulu]

(Unlike what Zulu said) there is no real limit on physical development - the human body will continue to evolve. [i.e. The world record for the 100m will reach 6 seconds at some stage]

I don't agree on that. The 4 minute mile was there but broken etc etc and I think if you look at all records - they will be broken in time.
I don't think you can say there is a genetic ceiling on anything since we (as a race) don't even know enough about our own genes yet to make that statement!!!

Lads I don't know how you can say that, of course records can be broken but there is a limit for us all, I mean if you accept what yer saying then the only reason you or I aren't the 100m or 1500m world champion is because we didn't train enough. That is patently wrong we all have physical limits and as a race we will reach ultimate limits sooner or later. There is a genetic limit on the human body and we don't need to know everything to know that, what the limit is is a matter of speculation but it is there of that there can be no argument.

Look at all the physical traits you listed - this is why physical fitness will always be the biggest factor in GAA.
Partly it's because we know more about them - but it's also because we know little about training skill!

I don't think anyone is arguing that physical fitness isn't or shouldn't be the major goal of training, instead I think some of us are arguing that the skills should be a bigger aspect than they are at the moment.

Most IC-training is sub standard

In fairness to IC coaches I think this is largely because they aren't working in a professional enviroment and simply don't have access to the players often enough to allow them to work on skills, recovery and the different components of fitness. Now I'm not saying all IC coaches have the necessary knowledge to implement a proper yearly plan even if the game was professional but it would improve if the game was professional.

[Logan]

Perhaps you phrased it wrong?

You used the phrase 'genetic ceiling' which implies there is a notional limit on human performance - this is not quite accurate. You didn't refer to anything specifically in Gaelic games.
I just pointed out it wasn't possible to confirm this or say with certainty.

I also think if you look at the case study you referred to - the 100m.
The times have dropped in it from 10.10 to sub 10'sec's to 9.90's to 9.80's then stuck at 9.78 for a period - until Usain Bolt blows it out of the water at 9.6's now ...
So the point is that training, technology, chemistry etc all will improve and push the 'genetic ceiling'.